A justification for strong atheism by Tim McGregor

 

This repost from Tim McGregor is available for Facebook commenting at its original source on Atheism United here.

TLDR:

Q) No one quibbles when I say "There's no such thing as fairies", so why do people try to force me to admit that I remain open to further evidence if I say "There is no God"?

A) Because Theists.

First some definitions. They are not mine; they were created by other people; I may have paraphrased. I have no interest in debating these.

Belief: A subjective attitude that some proposition is true.

Atheism: The absence of belief in, or denial of the existence of, a deity or deities.

"Weak" or "De-Facto" Atheism: the absence of positive belief in the existence of a deity or deities.

"Strong" Atheism: the belief in the non-existence of deities.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things, especially of the existence or nature of God

I'm going to shy away from using the term "gnostic" at all, as it has too much baggage for my liking; in standard usage it isn't the opposite of agnostic.

If you're not already familiar with it, I recommend a quick read of this wikipedia article on the spectrum of theistic probability.

OK, let's go. Try to be honest, and answer the following questions as you would have done before starting to read this article, because it will be immediately obvious that these are leading questions and you may think about changing your responses as a result.

Which of these statements do you feel most comfortable with:

a) I believe there is no such thing as ghosts.

b) I am uncertain as to whether ghosts are real or not.

On the basis that there may be a few atheists in here who still believe in other supernatural entities, try this:

a) Hong-Kong Phooey is not an actual live entity that exists in the real world and is entirely fictional.

b) Hong-Kong Phooey may or may not exist in the real world. I am unable to prove this either way.

If none of those float your boat, try similar statements about Alien-Abductions, Atlantis, Vampires, Werewolves, or the Great Green Arkleseizure. No matter what you believe about the existence or otherwise of a deity, the likelihood is that you are happy to use categorical statements on most of these topics, without any caveats. We're all "strong" a-phooey-ists right? But what about when it comes to god?

a) I believe there is no such thing as god.

b) I cannot be certain whether god exists or not.

Leaving aside the issue of which god we are talking about for the moment, those who ascribe to weak-atheism and agnostics are much more likely to feel comfortable using option b. But why so? So in strict philosophical terms, we know it's not possible to prove a negative; "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" right? Our senses and our reasoning are fallible, it's possible that we just haven't found any evidence yet, but it might still be out there. But what is different about the god question to the Hong-Kong Phooey question? Pretty much any argument one can make for forcing the position of openness to the existence of one of these (non) entities can be made for the other. And hey, I’ve seen Hong Kong Phooey.

Try this:

  1. I know that there is no such thing as werewolves.

  2. I know that there is no such thing as an interventionist god who loves and cares for us and responds to our prayers.

If werewolves existed (in any significant numbers at least) we might expect there to be some sort of evidence, but there isn’t, and knowing what we know about the way legends evolve, by far the most plausible scenario is that there are no werewolves. Almost no-one would ask anyone to equivocate on the topic. But what about a caring god who listens to and answers prayers? We might also expect some evidence for such no? Some detectable efficacy rate of prayer? And yet all scientifically conducted tests have failed to detect such. We are prepared to accept categorical statements on the absence of werewolves without any such similar scientific tests (as far as I know at least) being performed, so why must we hedge our bets with the language we use on the subject of god but not werewolves?

OK, so specific gods with specific attributes might have testable qualities, but what about those vague, nebulous, non-interventionist, absentee gods like the ones the deists believe in? Well frankly who cares about them? That isn’t what almost anyone is really talking about when this topic comes up, it’s usually just another one of those distraction tactics intended to shift religious Overton window in the direction of theism. “You can’t prove that the universe wasn’t created by some omnipotent being who then just pissed off and is therefore undetectable can you? No! Therefore it’s perfectly acceptable for me to refuse to sell cakes to homosexuals!” Not buying it, sorry. These gods are barely worth the title, and aren’t worthy of consideration.

Before wrapping up, it’s worth going through a few objections to this viewpoint.

First, one I’ve heard from theists on occasion: “Comparing god to the tooth-fairy is deeply offensive to us and/or trivialises our deeply held convictions.” a) This is a non-sequitur, tells us nothing about the veracity of the statements or the validity of the arguments, and is merely an attempt to stop the discussion, and b) tough.

One that I wouldn’t have included at all had it not been used on the thread that prompted this discussion: “What about people who find consolation in the existence of god, perhaps even to the point that it is the only thing keeping them alive?”. Again, the first thing to note is that this is another complete non-sequitur. How comforting a proposition is tells us absolutely nothing about how true that proposition is. It’s also rather difficult to see how the difference between saying “There’s probably no god” and “There’s definitely no god” makes much difference to people having such an existential crisis. Of course, as compassionate people we wouldn’t go shouting about the non-existence of god in face of religious people struggling with finding reasons to live; they need help, truth can come later. But the existence of people who require comforting lies (or in this case presumably a comforting lack of commitment to the truth on a particular topic by a third-party?) is no reason for us to practise intellectual dishonesty in general discourse IMO. I typically associate this particular non-sequitur with theists looking to shut down the conversation, which is why I was surprised to see it crop up in a group at least notionally populated entirely by atheists.

Another objection from the original thread: “This is an important question to get right”. Is it? Is the distinction between a practically non-existent god and a actually non-existent god really that important? What difference does it really make to the way anyone lives their lives? If we were arguing over the actual existence or non-existence of god as a binary issue, I might agree, but this level of discourse is almost splitting hairs, it’s just a bit of an intellectual exercise that is of very little consequence to anyone outside a theology department. I don’t think any atheist (except perhaps one still struggling to throw off the shackles of a religious upbringing, or who has been duped by Pascal’s wager) has ever had a thought like “well I would have a wank, but since I’m forced to remain open to the possibility of god’s existence I won’t, just in case.” In my opinion the perceived importance of this question is one that is thrust upon us by theists seeking to make us give ground, trying to force us into their definition of agnosticism to make it seem like the balance of probabilities and public opinion is further in their favour than it actually is by shifting the window of discourse on the topic, and as such the notion should be resisted.

What about: “It’s a more defensible position in arguments with theists”? This may be so, but I’m generally against intellectual dishonesty in order to score points. I much prefer to say what I actually think and be prepared to defend my point with reasoned argument, than hedge my bets or dissemble because it makes life a little harder to do otherwise.

To sum up, in almost every other question of the existence of mythical or fictional beings, despite knowing that we must remain open to new evidence, and being aware of our own fallibility, we are perfectly happy to make categorical statements. I propose that the only reason we are forced into prevaricating on this particular topic is because we’ve allowed religious thinkers to frame and shape the argument. If you feel the need to hedge your bets, I think your brain has been infected by the theists’ ridiculous memeplex, and you haven’t quite managed to to expunge it all yet.

I am as certain as I can be of the non-existence of any god worthy of the name, to the extent that I am entirely comfortable with saying “I believe that there is no god.” and I think you should be too.





Brian37's picture

 I wish I could go back and

 I wish I could go back and time and kick Thomas Huxley in his pills for creating the word "agnostic". That word never existed in anceint Greece. 

But since he cobbled the Greek suffix  "a"=without, with the Greek suffix "gnosis"=knowledge, to mean "fence sitter", and we are stuck with the popular use today, then we should still note the context in which it can only be properly used. 

 

"Agnostic" by itself says nothing about what the user lacks knowledge of. So it can only be used as a qualifying word in front of either theist or atheist. 

A flat out theist, or strong theist would say, "I know Jesus and the God of the Bible are the only truth of a god existing, and I know the God of the bible is the one correct answer."

 

An agnostic theist may say, " I am not sure if a God exists, but I lean to one existing." 

 

A flat out atheist (strong atheist) would say " I know there is no such thing as any type of God/god/s/deities". 

An agnostic atheist would say, " I am not sure if a god exists, and I currently lean to the likelyhood of one not existing."

 

I identify my position slightly different than even this as an atheist. 


I like to view God/god/s/deity claims in terms of past, present and future. Right now I am a flat out strong atheist on all past and present claims. But "tehcnically" although fleetingly unlikely, something might come along in the future to change my position. In that context I am an "agnostic atheist". 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog

EXC's picture

 We live under the tyranny

 We live under the tyranny of feelings.

People will claim to be believers in some god and we call them theists. But anytime you press theists on what they believe and why the believe it, they don't have any good answers. Their answers reveal that they don't really believe. If you're around any theist long enough, they'll eventually reveal that they don't really believe and their 'faith' is at best cognitive dissonance.

So being an agnostic or a theist just comes down to how you feel at the moment. Perhaps everyone is atheist but they just don't know it or are afraid to admit that.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

Brian37's picture

 And the GOP have no good

 And the GOP have no good answers for economics and foriegn policy and aso pander to right wing white nationalists. "Fuck you I got Mine, Jesus said so, Vote for billionaires and Trump, fuck averyone else." 

I think most really do believe. We don't get to put thoughts in their heads. But having said that, the denial of our arguments is a fear of being wrong. Being wrong would make them face a harsh reality. And they fear being finite. I don't mean fear of dying, while some may fear dying, but fear of being finite that there is no place to go after they die. "No forever"  frightings them, no super protector frightens them. 

I do think politicians find religion useful, but are merely pandering. Then there are malicios cons like Trump who don't care and use religion to very distructive levels. 
 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog

EXC's picture

Brian37 wrote: And the GOP

Brian37 wrote:

 And the GOP have no good answers for economics and foriegn policy and aso pander to right wing white nationalists. "Fuck you I got Mine, Jesus said so, Vote for billionaires and Trump, fuck averyone else." 

I think most really do believe. We don't get to put thoughts in their heads. But having said that, the denial of our arguments is a fear of being wrong. Being wrong would make them face a harsh reality. And they fear being finite. I don't mean fear of dying, while some may fear dying, but fear of being finite that there is no place to go after they die. "No forever"  frightings them, no super protector frightens them. 

I do think politicians find religion useful, but are merely pandering. Then there are malicios cons like Trump who don't care and use religion to very distructive levels. 
 

 

 

Yes of course. White people are the only ones that can be racist. They are the source of all our problems. The need to have their people and culture erradicated in the name of anti-fascicm. /S

I'm not with the GOP, I'm rational.

So why aren't irresponsible people that have a child they can't or won't take care of saying 'fuck everyone else' too? Just dump the problem of caring for the child on responsible people is a rational solution? You just want to parrot what you are told and never answer that question.

And then you critisize religion??????

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

Brian37's picture

EXC wrote:Brian37

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 And the GOP have no good answers for economics and foriegn policy and aso pander to right wing white nationalists. "Fuck you I got Mine, Jesus said so, Vote for billionaires and Trump, fuck averyone else." 

I think most really do believe. We don't get to put thoughts in their heads. But having said that, the denial of our arguments is a fear of being wrong. Being wrong would make them face a harsh reality. And they fear being finite. I don't mean fear of dying, while some may fear dying, but fear of being finite that there is no place to go after they die. "No forever"  frightings them, no super protector frightens them. 

I do think politicians find religion useful, but are merely pandering. Then there are malicios cons like Trump who don't care and use religion to very distructive levels. 
 

 

 

Yes of course. White people are the only ones that can be racist. They are the source of all our problems. The need to have their people and culture erradicated in the name of anti-fascicm. /S

I'm not with the GOP, I'm rational.

So why aren't irresponsible people that have a child they can't or won't take care of saying 'fuck everyone else' too? Just dump the problem of caring for the child on responsible people is a rational solution? You just want to parrot what you are told and never answer that question.

And then you critisize religion??????



If you are anti abortion then you are forcing females to term, and if they are lucky and don't die, they become a financial burdon to society yes. That is why it is important to keep abortion legal. But even in cases where the female is poor and still wants the kid, it also does not do any good to kick that female out into the streets. People on social programs do not want handouts, they simply want stabilility so they can eventaully get off that help. If you want them to be prepared for having a child, then the best thing is to pay livable wages so that the female can care for the child without having to work 3 jobs 24/7. But just telling females to simply keep their legs shut is as fucked up as when fundies say it. And you certainly aren't going to adopt all the unwanted children. 

Family planning is about education and teaching both females and males how their bodies work, and teach them that kids and marriage are a comfort issue, not a mandate. 

We have no family medical leave in America that is mandated nationwide. We have  a sucky health care system where greed is top dog. Women still do not make equal wages to men. I am so sick of your bullshit that careing about the wealfare of others is somehow going to hurt uber billionairs like Bezos. 

 

You keep saying you are not for the GOP but you are nothing more than a Libertarian who thinks Ayn Rand is a God. The GOP and Libertarians are equal in fucking over Americans on economics. You are simply fundy lite. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog

EXC's picture

Brian37 wrote: If you are

Brian37 wrote:


If you are anti abortion then you are forcing females to term, and if they are lucky and don't die, they become a financial burdon to society yes. That is why it is important to keep abortion legal. But even in cases where the female is poor and still wants the kid, it also does not do any good to kick that female out into the streets. People on social programs do not want handouts, they simply want stabilility so they can eventaully get off that help. If you want them to be prepared for having a child, then the best thing is to pay livable wages so that the female can care for the child without having to work 3 jobs 24/7. But just telling females to simply keep their legs shut is as fucked up as when fundies say it. And you certainly aren't going to adopt all the unwanted children. 

Family planning is about education and teaching both females and males how their bodies work, and teach them that kids and marriage are a comfort issue, not a mandate. 

We have no family medical leave in America that is mandated nationwide. We have  a sucky health care system where greed is top dog. Women still do not make equal wages to men. I am so sick of your bullshit that careing about the wealfare of others is somehow going to hurt uber billionairs like Bezos. 

 

You keep saying you are not for the GOP but you are nothing more than a Libertarian who thinks Ayn Rand is a God. The GOP and Libertarians are equal in fucking over Americans on economics. You are simply fundy lite. 

 

Of course I am for abortion rights. The most hyporitical people are the abortion protestors that stand outside the clinics praying instead of handing the women a check for half a million dollars(the cost of properly raising a child) to not have an abortion.

I think for myself, so I have positions that are neither right-wing, left-wing nor libertarinian. No one tells me what to think and believe. That is what I think a rational person does, but you only parrot talking points in leftist media.

How many self descrbed Libertarians would be in favor of mandating birth control? If government is to be a civilizing force, they must mandate civilized behavior. Being a guy that knocks up naive women for the fun of is not civilized behavior. Getting training for a real job and working at it is civilized behavior. So why does the government you support subsidize the former with welfare and punish the latter with high taxes?

If just telling people to be responsible about family planning and not mandating this by force of law would work, then why not do the same with taxes? Just make paying taxes voluntary. Just make obeying traffic laws voluntary with education not mandates to not run red lights. You really are dumb to think that just telling teenagers with raging hormones to be responsible would work.

 

The problem with the healthcare system now is a lack of providers. But try going into a college with a bunch leftist students and professors and telling them to stop being so selfish, they must study to become healtcare providers. They would throw a fit if they were not allowed to study for an easy carrer and follow their hearts. So it would seem to me the leftists are the real selfish bastards destroying the healthcare system and the country.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

Brian37's picture

 Voluntary taxes? HA HA HA

 

Voluntary taxes? HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA. That must be some good shit you are smoking. Nobody likes paying taxes so if you make it "voluntary" there wold be no money for police, or fire departments or our military, or public roads. Taxes are NOT robbery becuse they are manditory. Taxes are bargained over through legislation and those can change over time, either going up, or going down or being eliminated on certian things. The only people that would benifit from taxes being "voluntary" are billionaires, not that they pay much now anyway. It would create anarchist society where only those with money have power. 

I cant afford my taxes going up because I live on a fixed income and I am retired. Jeff Bezos could spend 3 million dollars a day for the next 200 years and still not go broke. Now between the two of us, who do you think can afford to pay more in taxes? Don't fucking ask me to feel sorry for people that are never going to be homeless or one medical bill way from being bankrupt. 

If you don't like a tax, call your representitive, that is how democracies work. But you do not get to not pay taxes because you don't like them. If I have to pay taxes, so do you. GROW THE FUCK UP. It isn't going to kill you. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog